It is very uncommon, practically never happens but still very rarely it is possible to talk about sound or playback systems from a prospective of “absolute tone”. Yes, the audio people love to take about tone of their audio but in 99.999% those audios has no tone but instead the numerous and numerous multi-correlative problems that all together create some kind of flavor of reproduced sound. That has nothing to do with the “absolute tone” that I’m taking about. The tone that mean is an added value to a regular very good quality Sound. It sort of the tone of some Giuseppe Guarneri’ or Antonio Stradivari’s violins among the army of other fine instruments. It is sort of a sense of instantaneous nobility and humanity that transmitted within in sound that colors Sound into the sovereign flavors.

I would like to say that before this “absolute tone” might manifest itself all technical and semi-technical problems with playback should be resolved, but in some instanced the royally of the “absolute tone” is capable to break through of some audio troubles. The way in which it works: if an element (driver for instance) has the aptitude to the “absolute tone” then there are “special conditions” under which the amplitude of the “absolute tone” manifests itself the most. The “art” in here, is to recognize those conditions and to let the driver to operate into the most favoriteable for it’s “absolute tone” environment.

Most of the audio people that read this article would associate the “absolute tone” with the different flavors of tubes, coloration of magnetic, minute tonal influences of passive parts or wires. It is not how I see it. I do NOT believe and do NOT subscribe the idea that the “absolute tone” comes from electronics. The electronics can only destroy or minimize the “absolute tone” by (for instance) the unreasonably high or low transient, de-coloration or coloration of tones, enunciation or compressing contrasts and by thousand other moments. However the electronics can’t create the “absolute tone”. In fact the “absolute tone” would manifest itself at its full glory ONLY if the electronics do not dye the sound in any ways at all. The electronically induced  “absolute tone” can fool some listeners for a short period of time but in the log run the electronic “absolute tone” is a dildo of sound reproduction. Well, if so then what I am taking about?

I feel that the “absolute tone” is the exclusive property of reactance of mechanically elements of sound reproductive chain – namely the loudspeakers. Interestingly that the “absolute tone” dose not necessary mind the loudspeakers topologies and it might manifest itself among all possible loudspeakers topologies. I do not know where the “absolute tone” is hiding but most likely that it is in the driver itself, probably in the special relationship between the mass and material of the moving elements and the forces that influence this movement. There are many different ways how unreasonable or even stupid dealing with the drivers (that might be cable to produce the “absolute tone”) would kill in them the “absolute tone” ability but sometimes when the correct drivers allowed to “breathe freely” then they could really blossom with their “absolute tone”…

Among the numerous drivers that I have seen/heard there are very few, and only conditionally, that were cable to do the “absolute tone”. The beaten by me Vitavox S2 is one of them. The T350 tweeter, only if it driven very hard and at the very high dynamic ranges is capable to throw the “absolute tone” that is unimaginably beautiful. I wish the T350 would be able to do it when it plays soft. The 10” and 15” Tannoy Red (certainly vintage, not contemporary) drivers, being placed into a sensible enclosure might conditionally throw the “absolute tone” of very high degree. The Podzus Gorlich’s midrange driver in ordinary enclosure is capable to handle the surprisingly  good “absolute tone” if not used too low. The Vitavox K15/40, AK151 (if they properly used) handle the “absolute tone” in the upper-bass world. Some older Scan-Speak and Vifa inexpensive silk dome tweeters were very “absolute tone capable”, again, if they were properly used and in very limited applications.  The list might go on and on…. What is intriguing, that the contemporary drivers do not “absolute tone compliant”. If you take a contemporary good loudspeaker than you might get out of it very good quality sound but it will not be even close to the  “absolute tone”.  Take for instance Wilson Alexandria or the latest Grand Slamm or the older Grand Utopia that is set at it’s proper HF distance (do not take the newest Grand Utopia – this speaker is unspeakable garbage). All of them will do quite high quality sound (conditionally) but none of them even remotely approach the nobility of the absolute tone.

In the end I do not think that the “absolute tone” is so elusive. It is as elusive as the concept of elusiveness itself. If one knows how to pin down the ingredients of the absolute tone or at least to facilitate the conditions where and when the components allowed to do the absolute tone at tier best then the playback dose that Wienner’s violin tone or the Prague’s woodwinds. If one does no have any sensibility about the “absolute tone” then his/her playback sounds like anyone else in Hi-Fi audio…

morricab wrote:

I have found that the Apogee loudspeakers ribbon drivers can quite successfully reproduce correct tone.  The reason why is this:  They have very little coloration from the driver materials themselves (no nasty resonances as the resonance is at only a few Hz), They are very linear (very low harmonic distortion), and are in an open baffle (so they do not excite cabinet resonances).  The planar magnetic bass driver in Apogees is slightly more colored but it gets the fundamentals (since it handles up to around 500 Hz) pretty correct.  If driven within its limits (depends on the size of the Apogee) the distortion is extremely low, again no box coloration, and very low noise from the driver itself.  One can get some idea of how colored a speaker will sound if on looks at the on and off axis response, the harmonic distortion, and the waterfall plot of a speaker.  An ugly waterfall plot nearly always guarantees a colored sound as all that stored energy is being released.  I think ribbons are capable of the purest tone and this also is the case in recording technology.  The most realistic tone I have ever heard on a recordings comes from ones that I know were made with ribbon microphones.  Normal condenser mics (ie. electrostatic) are good but they tend to wash the intensity of the tonal color a bit.  Ribbons preserve this intense natural color better and preserve very subtle dynamic contrasts.

Perhaps you are correct, but I personally do not know any predicted relatively between the “absolute tone” and the design implementations. I thins it would be ease if everything would spin around harmonic distortions or waterfall plots. I do not think it is but I would not pretend that I know what the “absolute tone” spins around… Perhaps, yes, there are some advantages in the ribbons but in practice I did not see any interesting ribbons. Their ultra low sensitivity, demand for ultra high current and very challenging impedance curve forces to use with ribbons some barbarian power amplifiers – did you see many 500W, high current, driving 2 Ohm load amps that would be able to produce ANY tone? :-) Well, it is possible that Apogee are capable to do what you say but doe they provide any practical ability to actual use them? I personally never witnessed it… you wiling to play them no louder them my Koshka is meowing… :-)

morricab wrote:

I have heard some of the big Tannoy drivers and I have to say that in my opinion they do not completely preserve correct tone (especially not in a large underdamped cabinet).

You are very much correct. The Tannoy’s cabinet are very problematic and their upper bass, by the virtue of their topology, is completely artificial. However in the tactfully built smaller enclosures and with 10” Red driver then do very interesting.

morricab wrote:

I have heard one horn system that I thought capable, the Martion Orgon. IMO there is not really a conventional paper or plastic cone that is color free enough to do the trick.

I never heard about this Martion Orgon. Can you provide some more information?

morricab wrote:

I don't know what your experience with large pure ribbon drivers is but my experience is that they preserve this sweetness of tone that one hears live, without artificial "enhancement" that I think is happening a bit with some vintage drivers in poorly designed cabinets and without artificial "subtraction" that seems to be afflicting many modern drivers.

I have practically no personal experience with them as I always refused them due to the sensitively consideration. I heard them many time in someone else installations, though…

morricab wrote:

Lest you think I speak without knowledge about correct tone, I live with my girlfriend who is a professional violinist (aspiring soloist).  I hear her practice daily and hear concerts regularly.  I know now what correct tone is (largely through her training me as well) and seek it out in my gear choices.  It is interesting to me that you mention certain violins because my girlfriend has been fortunate enough to in the last three years have 3 exceptional instruments with which to do her work.  They were (in chronological order) a Guarneri del Gesu, a Guadagnini, and currently a 1716 Stradivarius.  Having heard these instruments regularly has made this aspect of sound reproduction more important to me now than it once was.  I can easily hear now where my audiophile friend's systems are off (sometimes way off) in this regard.  Correct tone seems to have been abandoned in recent years as it has become trendy to say "if it sounds good to you its fine" audio relativism.  Many of these types of people have no idea what correct tone even is let alone how to seek it out in audio gear.

1) Does the tone of Guarneri or Guadagnini please us? Dose it please our perception of the tone?
2) Did this “desirable” perception of the tone exist  “as is” within you or you gain it only after you learned how the Guarneri sounded?
3) Is the Guarneri’s tone available without the Guarneri?
4) Do you reproduce the actual sound of the sounds or the sound of the space where the sounds took place?
5) What you reference when you assess the “absolute tone” if the Guarneri would never exist?

If you think in trims of the reasons that influenced me to ask those questions then the definition of the “absolute tone” might come in it’s new light….

morricab wrote:

Since hearing these wonderful instruments and numerous concerts I have found the concept of correct or "absolute" tone to be a major criteria in my listening experience.  I have also found as you that the majority of gear simply doesn't get it right.  As you know, Apogees while having many strengths, are far from perfect (mainly sensitivity and load issues).  They do, however, get tone and low level resolution more correct than nearly every other speaker I have heard. Dynamically, they have some limitations compared to horns (but not compared to most box speakers or other planars for that matter). It is now possible to devise ribbons with very high sensitivity using rare earth magnets (>95db).  I think this could be the ultimate listening solution because it gets close to "absolute" color, dynamics, and low level information (due to the fact that a good ribbon is relatively un "noisy" as a driver). I notice you didn't mention either ribbon or electrostatic technology in your post, yet the best types of microphones are using these principles (with ribbon being the best for tone preservation).  In theory (and a few examples in practice) these technologies should be the best at the other end of the chain.  I think, especially with ribbons, there is the possibility to combine high sensitivity, wide dynamic range, and correct tone using this technology.

Well, I have mentioned in my post before the reflections of my awareness to whatever I had experience with. I did have exposure to many ribbons and electrostatics and I never was not able to make any positive judgment about them. Even the best ribbons and electrostatics that I head even driven at the ultra low volume level always has one problems that for whatever reasons their admirers never acknowledge: those speaker have always very thin sound, that primary due to this deficiency at upperbass and consequentially the upperbass harmonics…

Sill, this is the thread bout the “absolute tone” but not about my bitching against the ribbons or electrostatics. So, get it as anything else – as the large steaming pile of …me.

Don't confuse between live music and recorded music.  I never speak of "correct tone" with regard to live music or real instruments.  A Strad sounds like a strad and a POS violin sounds like a POS violin.  Both tones are "corrrect" for that particular instrument (provided they are played with some skill).  In both cases we are hearing what I think you are refering to as "absolute" tone.

When I say correct tone, I mean that if there is a recording of a strad violin (preferrably one I made ) then that recording will only sound "correct" if it still sounds like a strad violin and not some generic version of a violin.  This is what I mean by correct tone, the correct replication of the recording.  Now if the recording is bad then correct tone may not be absolute tone because perhaps for that recording, absolute tone is not achievable.

A good example of your other points:

A friend of mine came over the other day who loves music and hifi but has limited exposure to real live music.  My girlfriend was kind enough to play a bit of some Paganini Caprices (numbers 1, 5, and 24) on the Stradivarius (yes a real one from 1716) she is playing now (on loan for the year) to entertain us.  He had never ever heard a violin up close before (she very near us say 2 meters) and was quite impressed with both the amazing tone of the instrument and the acoustic power.  She also had on hand a cheap and nasty modern violin that she was to give to a student for learning violin.  The difference was immediate and stark in contrast.  My friend literally gasped at how bad the modern cheap violin sounded.  I too was shocked, being now conditioned to hearing only the finest instruments.  Its no wonder many people find the violin unpleasant!  So with no conditioning the sound is as the sound is and the difference takes only seconds to perceive. 

We then proceeded to listen to the sound that different bows make when playing the same violin (the Strad of course)!!  It sounds almost like the argument do cables make a difference in the sound, no?  Well, the bow makes a big difference in the character of the violin and that was a second shock to us!  Of course my girlfriend already knew this and was pleased that we could hear this difference.  She said that one would be more suitable for a small chamber concert (it had a softer warmer sound) and the other more suitable for a concerto in a big hall (where the hall itself warms up the sound and maximum projection of sound is necessary). 

In a way the Strad could be likened to a set of very sensitive and highly resolving loudspeakers.  Every nuance in technique and equipment is unveiled.  The cheap violin reveals nothing but its own vile character regardless of bow or technique.

Morricab,

Of curse you are very much correct but I always thought that what you said is understandable by default.

When I am talking about the ability of playbacks to care the “absolute tone” I indisputably meat sound reproduction of the “best” interments that originally are able to produce the “better tone”.  Even furthermore, I meant not only the best in own class instruments but also the best in own class playing techniques and lucid recording methods.  About the “playing techniques”: I kind of do not listen “bad music” or uninteresting artists … so, mostly the greater artists have the level of operating their instruments “sufficient enough” to get the “better tone” out of their instruments. About the “lucid recording methods”: in many cases the foolish recording techniques screwed up even “better players” with the best instruments. For instance the Strads sound like Strads only when their voice mixed with ambiance and when they heard from far away.  Here is where people like Heifetz for instance come short as they mostly recorded with the microphone positioned too close to their instruments (here is where the Heifetz’s unfortunate “sharpness: comes from…)

There is something more to say about the recording-reproduction techniques….

Generally the “up-close microphoning” is a bitch of recording industry. People have dead, low-sensitively; low-efficiency speakers and their speakers have transient ability of 185-years old turtle.  As the result audio people need to ”expedite” sound in order to get a subjective sensation of “live-like” dynamic and transient. So, what they do? They raise HF response of their systems to very high levels and subdue the harmonics of the musician instruments by sticking the microphones as close as possible - this all produce juts too “#” sound. Funny but in some cases it forces the artists who “play for a microphone” to play in “altered way” (mostly string instruments) that would sound OK after it will be reproduced at a typically dead playback ( Low sensitively studio  monitors with impedance equalization and etc…)

Here is another “absurd” rule of mine that I shell probably to put in my Audio For Dummies ™ section:

The lower measurable HF system can play (while producing “absolute tone”) the better system is. For instance you have two loudspeakers. The first loudspeaker cares a certain quality of “absolute tone” and the measure minus 3 dB at 20kHz. The second one cares the SAME quality of “absolute tone” and it measures minus 3 dB at 15kHz. The second loudspeaker is way more superior if the HF auditable result is the same. The best imaginable loudspeaker should produce the SAME quality of “absolute tone”, while to have no auditable HF limitation and the same time to have as LOWEST AS POSSIBLE height frequency cut-off. I think the practical limit is – 3dB at 11-12kHz and the loudspeaker that measurably go up to 20-30kHz  most likely has at 10khz deficient transient capacity. This loudspeaker is juts another audiophile garbage….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Hi Romy,
I guess I view absolute tone a bit differently than what you describe.  I think that each real instrument or person (as in singer) has its own "absolute" tone.  It is the sound of what it is (or its gestalt).  The ideal speaker (ie. a perfect electrical to mechanical transformer) would have NO absolute tone of its own.  It would therefore be able to reproduce the "correct" tone of whatever is on the recording (ie. it gets the absolute tone of the recorded instrument correct insofar as its captured on the recording.)

Now I can tell you from a fair bit of practical experience that a strad still sounds like a strad even up close.  All the harmonics and overtones are there.  They are distinctive to the instrument (a different strad of course will have another set of harmonics/overtones) and to the musician playing it.  My girlfriend and I did an interesting experiment awhile back (I am a scientist afterall).  We wanted to see if we could "see" the difference between two top violins (the Guraneri and Guadhini) so we hooked up a microphone at about 2 meters away and fed the signal into a 61 band RTA that I have.  The RTA has a peak and hold feature so that we could examine the harmonic distribution for a note that she played.  It was startling how much difference there was (and it was abundantly clear from just listening) between the ratio of lower to upper harmonics.  The Guarneri was much "darker" sounding and it showed graphically.  The decay of sounds for both instruments in the same hall (and in the same spot) will be the same, therefore, the RELATIVE differences will remain.  The Guarneri she had would simply sound that much Darker (as it is mostly higher frequencies that get lost).

I am not so much disagreeing with you (as I too find violins sound much nicer some distance away) but the basic "essence" of the sound is still distinguishable as such.

I don't think it has as much to do with the up front HF response as it has to do with the application of compression.  Most "dead" sounding loudspeakers are designed to be good with standard pop/rock music (the majority of their customers listen preferrentially to this kind of music so it makes economic sense).  The music industry compresses this (mostly) garbage to have a dynamic range of 10db or less in most cases.  A speaker need not worry about being dead sounding when the average level is 90db +-5db.  No worries, it won't sound dead.  Also of course the perception of HF and LF changes with SPL.  This is where EQ boost or cut is used in studios.  It is not so much an issue with classical (although compression can be).  I am convinced that most people don't like classical music in general because their systems are so poor at low level resolution and reproducing "correct" tone from the recording. 

It is interesting to try to listen to classical music in a car.  This is an exaggerated case of what happens in many home systems.  As you know the intrinsic noise floor in a car at highway speeds is around 80db.  This is why pop/rock works so well in a car.  You turn the radio up to 90-95db to "get above the noise" and all the music is there (remember our narrow dynamic range window).  Nothing gets dropped below the noise floor in the car.  Now what happens to Classical?  Well, MOST of it drops below the noise floor, UNLESS you pump it so the peaks are wholly and unnaturally loud.  Most home systems have the same problem.  The intrinsic "noise" floor of the system is too high to realistic sound at real world listening levels.  Only the peaks sound ok and the rest is a muddled mess.

The old recordings of Heifitz IMO sound very much like what a real violin sounds like up close.  Now you may not like how a violin sounds up close but apparently Heifitz did (since the damn thing was always wailing away in his ear).  IMO, the tone of many of those recordings is largely "correct", meaning that if you were there standing 1 meter away that is close to what it really sounds like.  I wouldIt is merely a different concept to the big concert hall sound but no less valid IMO.  After becoming accustomed to hearing violin up close, I like the sound of a closely miked string instrument but also like the sound of that same instrument in a bigger space.  Its different but still the same "essence" of sound. 

I don't quite see how what you are postulating in the final paragraph can be true.  Any curtailing of HF in the audible range (this is variable for everyone...I can hear to 16KHZ) will affect the tone of instruments that contain higher harmonics (ie. most of them).  You will alter the tone structure of these instruments and therefore not get either "absolute" tone or "correct" tone as I have described them.  If the sound is worse with greater HF extension on the speakers it is likely the fault of the electronics injecting noise into this region (a big reason why the new breed of "digital" amps don't sound natural is their excessive HF noise content).  I think you are wrong to blame all loudspeakers in this regard, I would more likely put the blame on the electronics.  The best tweeters I have heard have extension well over 20kHz, but they also only sounded great with great electronics behind them.  What you are suggesting sounds to me like shooting the messenger because of the message.

.

morricab wrote:

I guess I view absolute tone a bit differently than what you describe.  I think that each real instrument or person (as in singer) has its own "absolute" tone….

Actually when I was taking about “absolute tone” I meant only reproduced sound. The semantic about “absolute tone” derives form the Clark’s semantics of “absolute phase”: there is no “absolute phase” but there is only the corrector and incorrect phases. The same with the “absolute tone”.  The “absolute tone” is a RELATIVE term (ironic???) that describes a capacity of reproduction projected to the expectations of a listener and the tonal quality of the recorder music.

morricab wrote:

Now I can tell you from a fair bit of practical experience that a strad still sounds like a strad even up close.  All the harmonics and overtones are there.  They are distinctive to the instrument (a different strad of course will have another set of harmonics/overtones) and to the musician playing it.  My girlfriend and I did an interesting experiment awhile back (I am a scientist afterall).  We wanted to see if we could "see" the difference between two top violins (the Guraneri and Guadhini) so we hooked up a microphone at about 2 meters away and fed the signal into a 61 band RTA that I have.  The RTA has a peak and hold feature so that we could examine the harmonic distribution for a note that she played.  It was startling how much difference there was (and it was abundantly clear from just listening) between the ratio of lower to upper harmonics.  The Guarneri was much "darker" sounding and it showed graphically.  The decay of sounds for both instruments in the same hall (and in the same spot) will be the same, therefore, the RELATIVE differences will remain.  The Guarneri she had would simply sound that much Darker (as it is mostly higher frequencies that get lost). I am not so much disagreeing with you (as I too find violins sound much nicer some distance away) but the basic "essence" of the sound is still distinguishable as such.

Well, this is all correct it is has nothing to do with reproduction. Do no forget that we in audio use very barbarian electro-mechanical methods to mimic the harmonics, not to mention that the harmonics themselves are necessary but not the inclusive part of the “absolute tone”. 

morricab wrote:

I don't think it has as much to do with the up front HF response as it has to do with the application of compression.  Most "dead" sounding loudspeakers are designed to be good with standard pop/rock music (the majority of their customers listen preferrentially to this kind of music so it makes economic sense).  The music industry compresses this (mostly) garbage to have a dynamic range of 10db or less in most cases.  A speaker need not worry about being dead sounding when the average level is 90db +-5db.  No worries, it won't sound dead.  Also of course the perception of HF and LF changes with SPL.  This is where EQ boost or cut is used in studios.  It is not so much an issue with classical (although compression can be).  I am convinced that most people don't like classical music in general because their systems are so poor at low level resolution and reproducing "correct" tone from the recording.

Interesting point. I kind of agree and disagree about it. I agree with what you suggest but I can bring myself  many contra-arguments  (and I will agree with them) that would make this vision “incorrect”… Go figure…

morricab wrote:

I don't quite see how what you are postulating in the final paragraph can be true.  Any curtailing of HF in the audible range (this is variable for everyone...I can hear to 16KHZ) will affect the tone of instruments that contain higher harmonics (ie. most of them).  You will alter the tone structure of these instruments and therefore not get either "absolute" tone or "correct" tone as I have described them.  If the sound is worse with greater HF extension on the speakers it is likely the fault of the electronics injecting noise into this region (a big reason why the new breed of "digital" amps don't sound natural is their excessive HF noise content).

I do not know… the rules of the game are completely changed at high frequencies. When we are talking about 12kHz, 16kHz or 20kHz then we are not talking about minus 3dB anymore. In my system I clearly recognize the ½ dB deviation at minus 9dB at HF as well as all playback that had plat response down to 20kHz sound too amusical to me. The way in wish I see it the reproduced sound should roll-off from 11-12kHz and the presents of HF should determine ONLY by the steepness of this roll off. So to me it is not important were is minus 3dB: at 10kHz or at 10kHz but rather were would be 20kHz: at minus 6dB or at minus 12dB….

morricab wrote:

I think you are wrong to blame all loudspeakers in this regard, I would more likely put the blame on the electronics.  The best tweeters I have heard have extension well over 20kHz, but they also only sounded great with great electronics behind them.  What you are suggesting sounds to me like shooting the messenger because of the message.

Perhaps. I blame whatever I know and whatever I’m experienced with. I know little about electronics and even among the little that I know I see a lot of variables in electronics (HF) that are superbly difficult to control. I think all bravado of the electronics people about the HF they got are not real accomplishments but juts semi-accidental results and no one knows how to make them sound realistic. People learned to measure frequencies and phase but there is a lot of more to it at the HF….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Again, experimenting with my Injection Chanel

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/LatestPosts.aspx?ThreadID=3833

I retune in my mind to the subject of Absolute Tone

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=2784

What occurred to me that audio people generally are not equipped mentally the think about Absolute Tone. They might in one way or to anther understand amplitude. The might somehow get a concept of phases or coloration but Absolute Tone is unfortunately is not a popular, or the “pre-sold notion” for audio people. I do not mention about the ability of audio people to recognize the stability of the Absolute Tone while a loudspeaker does all the rest “more reportable” audio tricks.

morricab wrote:

Fine, just don't call anything from playback Absolute.  The only absolute is live unamplified music, it must be so as it is the original event.

morricab wrote:

Sorry Romy you lost me there in your convoluted logic.  I have no idea what you mean by "maximum "human" tonal amplitude".  The closeness of a piece of music captured on tape or disc and its subsequent reproduction to the live original event is dependent on three things 1) The closeness of the recording to the real event, 2) The ability of the playback system to preserve the signal derived from the storage medium and 3) The room interaction with the propagated sound waves.

morricab wrote:

Of course it is!  I think you are wrong here and your attempt to define something really arbitrary like "maximum Human tonal amplitude" is making the problem overly complicated (Note: I did not say the solution wasn't complicated).  The closer the recrording, playback and room allow for a good imitation (ie. correctness to the absolute) the more like the real thing it becomes.  If the imitation is perfect then at least blindfolded (afterall with reproduction there are no performers present) you would never be able to tell the difference!

I have a problem with how you are using the english language, Romy.  You are using an absolute word (like absolute) to mean something you have invented and it is a relative thing.  This for me won't do.  I understand more or less what you are trying to say but I don't entirely buy it. 

"Let me to state it again and it is very imperative: audio does not produce the original sound it just reproduces it"

This is so obvious that honestly it doesn't need to be restated and I in no way implied or said anything different. 

"ordinal tone recorded and played back has little to do with original tone but rather it creates own producing environment in which the NEW tone get created"

No, this is not correct.  It might be a nice metaphorical way of thiking about why the sound is different but it is not really what is happening.  What is happening is that an original note with its fundamental and accompanying harmonic envelope, which by the way changes throughout the decay of that note and upon the intensity with which that note is played, is captured with a fairly high degree of frequency and dynamic fidelity by the microphone along with room acoustics, which are distinguishable to a large degree by the time and frequency difference from the main body of the note.  This is passed with minimal losses to a preamplifier, which subtly alters the harmonic envelope and dynamic range of the transmitted signal from the microphone.  This is passed (ideally) to a recorder, which again subtly changes the harmonic and dynamic envelopes and perhaps also sublty changes the fundamental as well (wow and flutter affecting pitch).  If there are more steps then there are more subtle (or not so subtle) degradations of the original event.  This is why direct to disk vinyl recordings can sound extremely realistic tonally and dynamically, simply fewer steps means less degradations (in general).  The note is still the same note but "mutated" somewhat and this is what gets reproduced and as a result is no longer "absolute" nor is it wholly realistic (your brain being very good at noticing these subtle differences).  Playback "mutates" this note even further to varying degrees giving more indicators in the pattern that it is not real. 

IMO, it is not about making something new it is about minimizing degradations of all kinds, frequency, phase, resonance etc. and introducing as little audible additives as possible; such as high order harmonics, IM distortion and other electronics based distortions (like jitter in digital as well or tracking distortions in LP) that are dead giveaways to our brains that we are not listening to something natural like an acoustic instrument.  This is the ultimate goal of reproduction to add or take away as little as possible in the hopes that what is on the recording is as close as possible.  Obviously, if that is not the case then the end result may be good sound but not realistic.

"If you feel that a cello of the original event has the “absolute tone” characteristics then why do you feel that vibration of speaker driver’s cone (along with many other things) should not have the “absolute tone” property? It is not the “absolute tone of cello” it is the “absolute tone” of audio drivers.
"

Obviously a speaker cone has its own sound but this is a bad thing not a good thing.  The absolute sound of a cello is usually a good thing.  A cone overlaying its bending and breakup resonances onto the cello sound (or voice or trumpet etc.) is a BAD thing and detracts from the illusion of a cello playing.  As basically all drivers have a voice of their own (the exception maybe being an ion plasma) I have found that the more uniform that voice is from top to bottom (ie. all drivers having the same voice or in my case a single full range panel) the easier it is for the brain to "ignore" this uniformity.  The brain is much better a recognizing when things change abruptly.  I heard this in great relief once listening to a pair of B&W 802 Nautilus speakers.  They have an aluminum dome tweeter, a kevlar mid, and carbon fiber bass, this coupled with very steep filters results in a coloration nightmare.  Because of the steep slopes, the drivers hand off to each other very abruptly and the coloration of each driver is quite different.  This means that transitions between drivers with the same instrument, like a saxophone, are very obvious and immediately destroy the illusion of a real sax as there is no continuity in the harmonic envelope of the instrument.  All speakers designed this way suffer the same problem.  When you have lived with full range electrostats or ribbons for a long time this kind of error is intolerable.  Coherence from a speaker is a key first step in believability.  From electronics it is a similar quest.  An amp that produces a pattern of distortion, at all levels, that is inaudible to the ear (ie. masked) will sound more natural than one with very low measured distortion but heavily weighted in high order harmonics, which are unnatural and not masked.  Again top to bottom coherence is important (in frequency response, phase response and distortion response).

morricab wrote:

"Let me to state it again and it is very imperative: audio does not produce the original sound it just reproduces it"  This is so obvious that honestly it doesn't need to be restated and I in no way implied or said anything different.

morricab wrote:

Because I don't accept your basic premise of a new sound from scratch that's why.

morricab wrote:

The problem is, Romy, every time you make a change in your system, which seems to be about as frequently as the rest of us, you are creating a new "absolute" sound in your scheme because it can only be referenced to itself.  Do you see the problem with adopting this philosophy??

morricab wrote:

Romy sez: "I see things differently. My view advocates that playback creates NEW Sound from scratch and the relation between the Sound of original event and the Sound of produced by playback have no inner-correlative point in audio and they mapped ONLY through listening consciousness." Where is the support for such a position?  If the data encoded in a recording is 99% of the original event (just for supposition) then this so called relation is a very close one and supports the more conventional view I think.

morricab wrote:

"So, I ask this question again - if you agree that “live” musical event might have the “Absolute Tone” then why you deny that sonic event produced by playback might have the “Absolute Tone” as well?" Because I don't accept your basic premise of a new sound from scratch that's why. I will agree with you at least that a playback system does have its own sound and that this sound should be relatively constant from recording to recording (I am not entirely convinced of this either as some distortions are dynamically related and thus would not show up on non-dynamic recordings.).  However; can you tell me where else we can reference this system??  Its sound is in one way absolute but who is to know when it is correct or not?  There is no reference but itself and this is an untenable position IMO.  At least with a real instrument in a real space you can say unmistakeably, AH that's live!

The question is, Romy, is it like reproduction where two parents get together and make a little one or is it like Dolly the sheep?

Another example of a reproduction is in the art world.  Here you frequently see "reproductions" of famous art works from past masters, some of which have been so good as to fool even experts, right down to the pigments and aging of components used in this reproduction.  To the untrained (and sometimes trained!) it IS the original.  Others are merely lithographs of originals and easily distinguished from the original even by someone who has never seen the original before.  Audio reproduction to me is more like this where the less the system and the recording impose their signatures on the event the more it comes to be like the original event (assuming the recording is a natural one to begin with and not a studio mishmash).  The finest reproduction I have heard was close enough to a real event in sound that with eyes closed you could believe that it was real even though you knew it wasn't.  Then a slight imperfection or two intrude to remind you, sonically, that it isn't but it sure was close!